Surgical Risk and Long-Term Mortality With PCI and CABG in Ischemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves survival compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD), but percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not show clinical benefits in this population. However, the randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating these 2 revascularization modalities may differ in terms of baseline surgical risk. The aim is to investigate whether the treatment effects of PCI vs OMT, and of CABG vs OMT, are modified by baseline surgical risk. Methods A post hoc analysis of the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction – British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 2 (REVIVED-BCIS2) and Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) RCT comparing PCI and CABG vs OMT, respectively, in patients with iLVSD, was conducted. The main outcome was all-cause mortality. Interaction between randomized treatment and baseline surgical risk, estimated by a modified European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE)-II, was quantified. Results A total of 666 participants from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial and 1200 participants from the STICH trial were included. Participants from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial were more likely to be in the highest tertile of baseline EuroSCORE-II (40.4% vs 29.4%, respectively; P < .001). In the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial, PCI had a consistent lack of effect on all-cause mortality vs OMT across baseline EuroSCORE-II tertiles ( P for interaction=.79). In the STICH trial, CABG reduced mortality consistently vs OMT across baseline EuroSCORE-II tertiles ( P for interaction=.64). Conclusions In the 2 largest RCT evaluating the impact of revascularization in iLVSD and multivessel coronary disease, the treatment effect of PCI vs OMT, and of CABG vs OMT, was not modified by baseline surgical risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".